Putnam, a scientific realist, holds a unique view on the relationship between facts and values. He publicly claimed that he wanted to restore his reputation for an almost overturned view that the difference between facts and values was vague and impossible under any circumstances. Because the fact statement itself, as well as the scientific inquiry and practical activities by which people decide what is a fact and what is not, presuppose value. Putnam pointed out that the traditional view of scientific value neutrality is based on the success of scientific tools and the consensus of most people. One reason to doubt the cognitive function of value judgments is that they can't be confirmed by scientific methods. In Foucault's ethical viewpoint, it is emphasized that people can't reach general agreement or majority agreement on ethical issues. Many people believe that the correctness of scientific theories can be satisfactorily proved. But in fact, it is impossible for people to agree with the truth of a randomly chosen scientific theory. Unfortunately, many people know nothing about science and many theories. As for the success of scientific tools, the significance of science is not limited to its practical application, so the rationality of science cannot be deduced from it. Therefore, it is untenable to prove the rationality of scientific truth and the irrationality of value truth with the success of instrumentalism and majoritarianism. [5]
Putnam emphasized that at least some values must be objective. The rational acceptability of precise science depends on cognitive advantages such as "coherence" and "practical simplicity". Therefore, at least some value terms not only represent the feelings of people who use these terms, but also represent the attributes of those things to which they apply. If these terms do not represent the nature of the theory, but only represent the attitude of the relevant personnel to the theory, then things like "appropriate", "fully proved" and "the most effective explanation" must also be completely subjective. Because the acceptability of reason cannot be more objective than the parameters it depends on. Therefore, at least these value terms have some objective usages, that is, some objective legitimacy conditions. Similarly, the subjective aspect of moral judgment cannot be overemphasized. If insisting on science in the field of science is an objective reason, it does not mean that every scientific question has a definite answer, and some scientific questions may have some objective and uncertain answers, then in the field of ethics, some values are true and some are false. "In short, some values (and some ideologies) are definitely wrong, and some views are definitely not as good as others. In this sense, it is objective to insist on ethical inquiry, which is different from insisting on ignorance without uncertainty at all. " [6]
It can be seen that Putnam tried to explain the integration, unity and restriction between science and value from two aspects. On the one hand, he disagrees with the view that positivism and old realism completely separate facts from values, but insists on the unity of the pursuit of objective truth with the value requirements of consistency, legitimacy, practical simplicity and perfection, and the unity of the objectivity and diversity of science. On the other hand, from the perspective of ethical values, Putnam disagrees with the values of subjectivism, relativism and utilitarianism, and thinks that at least some ethical values have objective standards or basis. As far as cognition is concerned, the choice of any conceptual framework is based on value. When choosing a framework to describe daily interpersonal relationships and social facts, people's moral values will first involve many factors. Therefore, the theory of truth is based on the theory of reason, and the theory of reason is based on our theory of goodness. ?
Putnam tried to unify fact and value, truth and value organically and internally, neither giving up the basic premise of the realistic objective truth theory, nor accepting the traditional view that fact is worth two points. His view belongs to a form of value truth theory, which is a criticism of traditional realism which only emphasizes truth as a purely objective description of reality or facts in ontology. It tells people that the pursuit of direct science is not a neutral activity that has nothing to do with human values.
So, can we completely deny the difference between facts and values, science and ideology, as relativists assert? Obviously not. As Putnam asserted, every fact has a value load, and every value carries a certain fact. The latter proposition shows that value without objective basis cannot be regarded as real value. So the value here is not exactly the same as the traditional dichotomy of factual value, because the latter mainly refers to subjective value. It can be seen that different interpretations of value presuppose different conclusions. Fundamentally speaking, value has both subjective and objective attributes, and pure subjective value obviously cannot be unified with objectivity or scientificity. There are different levels of value problems here, and objectivity and value can only be unified at a high level of scientific development.
Some basic viewpoints of contemporary western philosophy on the relationship between facts and values are discussed in front of us, which provides reference for us to solve the value problem in social science research reasonably.
In its original meaning, social science is a systematic knowledge inquiry with society as the object, so it is essentially different from subjective value systems such as ideology. Their differences are mainly manifested in their basic positions, attitudes and methods. From a basic standpoint, social science takes the pursuit of factual knowledge or exact knowledge about society as its basic task, so it generally does not presuppose a position. Real social science is sincere and fearless, and does not need to cater to the tastes of some individuals or social groups, so the attitude adopted is reasonable doubt. There is no forbidden area in research, and all seemingly conclusive or well-founded things or conclusions may become the objects of suspicion of social scientists. Even if it is possible to deny your previous conclusions or prejudices during the research process, so be it. A true social scientist is "egoless" and is not afraid to deny himself. Therefore, emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts is the proper meaning of social science. In methodology, social science has used many scientific methods, such as induction and statistics, in order to get regular things from specific social phenomena. Although induction is an unreliable method, social scientists often use it in order to explore the facts, including statistical methods and other scientific induction methods.
The followers of subjective values such as ideology are different. They stubbornly pursue faith, start from abstract concepts, principles and slogans, and try their best to serve the interests of certain social groups, so they adopt a dogmatic attitude and dare not doubt or question established traditions and beliefs. Most of its methods are deductive methods, that is, from abstract premises, conclusions divorced from reality are deduced. Therefore, although the subjective value system such as ideology is also under the banner of science, its argumentation method is very complicated, and the pursuit of gorgeous words or beautiful slogans is empty in essence, and its thinking is illogical, which often reneges. Induction and statistics are only purely instrumental in ideology, and the fact has become a girl who can dress up at will.
There are still some differences between social science and humanities. The former refers to disciplines closer to natural science, such as politics, economics, anthropology, etc., and can use empirical research and statistics. The latter refers to disciplines with more cultural characteristics and more valuable judgments, such as literature, history, philosophy and art, which are often inseparable from the values of a particular culture. However, a contemporary development trend is that humanities are increasingly demanding objectivity and science, that is, adopting more scientific methods and argumentation methods. For example, ethics was once considered as a knowledge about normative value, but scientists in the 20th century put forward that ethics cannot be divorced from real life, and the premise of ethical value should come from real life ethics. Therefore, if the humanities still stays at the traditional level of relative value, it is obviously backward to talk to itself and not compare and discuss it as widely and repeatedly as science.
Treating humanities and social sciences only as knowledge of specific social groups is a concentrated expression of their interests, and even putting forward so-called science, economics, politics and so on with national characteristics is actually reducing these disciplines to the level of private studies with no universal significance, which is not much different from astrology and geomantic omen. Only when a subject becomes cross-cultural knowledge that can be studied, discussed and verified can it become a recognized science. Social science may take some value factors into account because of the cultural characteristics of the research object, thus affecting researchers' views on specific social problems, but every science has some basic axioms, principles, categories or concepts, as well as recognized research and verification methods, including logical tools. For example, the concepts of state, political power, democracy and rights in political science and related theories, statistical methods used in opinion polls and general mathematical logic methods all belong to this kind of basic things.
Of course, as mentioned above, pure and absolute value neutrality is just an unattainable ideal in scientific research, which is similar to utopia, and as Putnam said, from a higher level, the value divorced from objectivity is only subjective value and has no real value significance. However, this still does not mean that scientific research does not need to be alert to the bondage or influence of subjective values and hinder the realization of cognitive objectivity. Moreover, the differences in human understanding and the high and low stages of scientific development are also different in time. It can be said that only by solving the problem of the relative distinction between facts and values at a lower level can we realize the unified task at a higher level.
It can be seen that the current social science research in China is still in a low-level situation where subject and object are not divided and science and ideology are confused. For example, ethics has hardly left the stage of normative ethics. At present, there are few descriptive studies on how people actually deal with or treat interpersonal relationships, and they generally remain at the level of deduction from abstract norms. It is true that normative ethics is one of the important contents of ethics. However, as scientific ethics, it still needs to find out the facts, which requires value-neutral research to a certain extent to avoid mistaking the "should" of ethics for "yes". In the study of traditional ethics, there are even more cases where facts and norms are difficult to distinguish. For example, some people confuse the normative ethics written in ancient books with the fact that China society actually handles interpersonal relationships, and hardly point out the difference between them; Some people even attributed the success of postwar Japan and other East Asian societies to Confucius and Mencius, and made such a hasty summary of the distinctive ethics formed in these countries' long-term traditions, which shows the lack of common sense in social science research.
As for sociology, politics, law and other social sciences, there is also confusion between facts and values, and it is impossible to tell what to judge and what to judge. Some people don't understand the difference between policy propaganda and fact finding. They just regard "should" as "yes" and don't understand that ideology and science are not the same thing. The relative neutrality of inquiry, investigation and fact report, especially on sensitive issues such as politics and sex, is still quite insufficient. Sometimes emotion is used instead of legal judgment. For example, a newly-built small city has made remarkable achievements in attracting investment, urban construction and environmental sanitation in recent years, but its cadres have obvious defects in their work style. For a long time, they have been asked to work overtime with little rest time, and some severe punishment measures have been taken in maintaining urban sanitation, which is obviously against the law. These are all suspected violations of existing laws and violations of civil rights. However, some researchers have written articles to attribute these to "kindness and illegality", trying to demonstrate the rationality of their illegal behavior with some achievements in their behavior results. Please note here that the expression "kindness is illegal" is to limit factual judgment with ethical value judgment. If you had some common sense of modern science, you wouldn't understand the problem like this. Because the fact is, first of all, these provisions violate the basic spirit of the current laws in our country, and whether the actor's motivation is good or bad is another question completely. By judging the value of motivation, it is obviously difficult to convince people to defend illegal acts.
There are many reasons for these situations. In the social history of China, during the period of "a hundred schools of thought contend", various ideas coexisted and competed with each other. Knowledge from the people can be used by some rulers, but there is no official monopoly on academics. After Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty "ousted a hundred schools of thought and respected Confucianism alone", all knowledge was officially branded. In this way, history, literature and philosophy can't get rid of the shackles of official ideology and become a part of the generalized rule method, not to mention law and politics. This situation even spread to natural sciences, such as astronomy for the emperor to make calendars. When western learning was introduced to China by foreign missionaries, the official thought was seriously rigid and backward, and it took a boycott attitude. It was not until the political and cultural changes in the early 20th century that the shackles of official ideology were finally broken, and modern natural science and social science were able to take root in China. However, the history of nearly a hundred years is still a history of struggle for the relative independence of science, especially social science. It is still an arduous task for the principle of seeking truth from facts to be truly implemented in social science research, which has experienced various twists and turns. Some people are used to being above everything and books, but it is not realistic. They don't even have the courage to face the reality. They have created many "research achievements" that point to deer as horses, tamper with facts and are seriously divorced from reality, and take "obeying orders as a skill" as their responsibility. Therefore, emancipating the mind is a long-term task, and the disadvantages of the traditional system must be overcome, so that researchers can really get rid of all kinds of constraints and gain true knowledge.
It can be seen that there is a general problem that facts and values are indistinguishable in social science research in China. Of course, the difference between fact and value, objectivity and value judgment in social science is not absolute and unchangeable. The two can be unified at a higher level. But at a lower level, in the primary stage of social science development, it is a more important task to pay attention to the difference between the two. Only by solving the low-level distinction problem can we solve the higher-level unification problem. On the other hand, if we absolutely understand the value neutrality of science and draw a clear line between them, we will also fall into utopianism, because we can only make a rough distinction.
Therefore, the problem is to master an appropriate degree. If pure absolute objectivity and complete subjective value are regarded as two extremes, then the actual researchers are always in the position between them. To a certain extent, our social science research is still at the end close to the subjective value, and we need to work hard to get closer to the objective end. Of course, no one can expect to achieve a completely objective ideal state, and can only try to achieve higher objectivity. On the contrary, there is no objective conscious requirement, which confuses science and subjective value, and even the minimum scientific nature cannot be guaranteed.
Precautions:
[1] The paper was published in the English version of Weber's Methodology of Social Science 1949 Free Press, p. 1-47.
[2] hempel: "Evaluation and Objectivity in Science", contained in Cohen's "Overview of 25 Years", p. 277.
[3] Mannheim: "Ideology and Utopia", 1936 English version, the first 150 pages.
[4] Hooke, Sydney: "Rationality, Social Myth and Democracy", translated by Shanghai People's Publishing House 1965, p. 34.
[5] Putnam: "Reason, Truth and History", Chinese translation of Liaoning Education Press 1988, p.218-223, 169, 184.
;